# Tiptone's Fauxhiba Paneteloids



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Tiptone posted in this thread about some Cohiba Panetelas that he was gifted. From the pictures and information he posted, it was very unlikely that these cigars were authentic. Still, being as curious as I am about counterfeits, I contacted tiptone and asked if he'd be willing to send me a specimen to examine and write up. Tiptone graciously agreed. Here is my report on the Tiptone Paneteloids.

*1. Preliminary Examination*
As tiptone observed, these cigars are far too long. Genuine Cohiba Panetelas are of the Laguito No.3 _vitola de galera_ and measure 4.5" x 26 ring. These, however, were 5.125" long or about 5/8" longer than they should be. This is well out of the range of variation one should ever see. Ring gauge was also slightly larger than the specification.

In this photo of two authentic and the two tiptone specimens side by side, you can see the difference in cap construction. The two real Panetelas have well constructed, multiwrap _vuelta-style_ caps as seen in larger gauge _totalmente a mano_ Habanos. The circular cap piece on one of the real Panetelas, second from the left, does not sit entirely smoothly on the head but this in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. In contrast, the two tiptone cigars have rather sloppy appearing heads that lack the classic _triple cap_ appearance. One of these, second from the right, also has a wrapper texture that is just grotesque.

So, superficially, these cigars certainly appear problematic. What will happen when I take fire to the foot?

*2. The Smoking*
It was a sunny, windless 50-degree day and perfect for smoking. First up was the reference, a genuine Cohiba Panetelas. After an easy lightup and a few puffs later, this classic Habanos started to deliver its signature sweet espresso and cocoa. Though tiny by modern tastes, with every draw this cigar drenches the palate with oily, dense tobacco flavor. Every sip of smoke is concentrated and decadent like few fat ringed sticks made today. The ash was a fluffy medium gray and striated like my other favorite in this vitola, the Montecristo Joyitas. This cigar has been and remains a quintessential Havana cigar.

Up next came the tiptone cigar. It lit well and drew smoothly...and that is where the goodness ran out. Although a medium tobacco foundation was present, the cocoa and espresso were non-existent. In its place was a strange, medicinal woody flavor coupled with a raw, hay/straw note. Here is how it started.

And here are how the two cigars ended up. I just couldn't smoke the tiptone any more than about 2/3" as the taste was just odd. In fact, I had left about an inch of the genuine article unsmoked so I could dissect the stub but after choking back the Fauxhiba, I relit the Panetelas and smoked it down to the last 3/8" until my fingers sizzled.

Some counterfeits smoke well and others abysmally. This one was strange and sort of offensive. Would a person reasonably experienced with Habanos in general and Cohiba specifically be expected to tell that this was a knock-off from the smoking? In my opinion yes, and with moderate certainty.

Wilkey


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

This is the second chapter in my analysis of the tiptone counterfeit Cohiba Panetelas. In the first post, above, I focused on the superficial appearance of the cigars and the smoking experience. In this post, I will highlight particular features of the bands.

As you may have noticed in the second picture, above, the bands on the genuine article and the tiptone cigars look different. Some of these differences are inconsequential in determining inauthenticity. Others, though, are dead giveaways. There is a third class of features that are not definitive in their own right but might be when coupled with other information. Let's start by taking a second, closer look at the bands on these four cigars. I would hope that even an Habanos amateur would get a gut feeling that two of these might not be kosher. Identifying the specific aspects that differ and assigning them to real or fake takes a bit more scrutiny though. That is why I often find it puzzling that folks are willing to offer "definitive opinions" based on web-quality photos. I always begin an analysis with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Ok, now that you've seen these two labels, what catches your eye? What doesn't look right? Are you sure? What might these features mean? Let's begin with a picture of the two bands laid out flat. It is always easier to make a good determination with the bands off the cigars. In this case, numerous differences can be seen. Four obvious ones stand out.

1. the dot patterns are different
2. one band says "La Habana, Cuba" while the other says only "Habana, Cuba"
3. the script fonts are different
4. the proportions of the "Cohiba" and box on the counterfeit are incorrect

Of these four things, only the last two are definitive on their own. Why not the first two? The reason is subtle. That dot pattern and wording were used on Cohiba bands between 1992 and 2003. However, the gold hot stamped "Cohiba" was used only from 2003 onward with the _new_ dot pattern and wording. So, with respect to the first two features, only the presence of the gold lettering indicates their inauthenticity.

Why else is it useful to examine bands off the cigars? One reason is that you can look at features of the embossing on the reverse that might otherwise be obscured by the colors and patterns on the front. In this case, I saw that the embossing die was qualitatively different on the counterfeit.

Now, from the first picture in this post, one could probably tell that the embossing and gold hot stamping are misregistered. Are these things indicative of fakery? The answer is an emphatic *NO*. Misregistration is a common manufacturing variation in printing of this type and should be completely disregarded as it provides almost no useful information. Never, ever use misregistration of colors, cutting, or embossing to confirm or disconfirm a cigar's authenticity. Here is a perfect example why.

In this photo, you see what you would normally expect to see. The colors, band trimming, embossing, and hot stamped gold are in reasonably good registration. These are a real and fake specimen from the four pictured above.

In this next photo, you see horrific misregistration of the cutting (see that the topmost row of dots are chopped), the gold emboss, and the embossing under the gold "Cohiba." Atrocious! Yet, once again, we have the real on the left and the fake on the right. Again, from the four pictured at the top of this post.

These are just a few of the many features and combinations of features that can be seen in the Cohiba band. The fact that Cohiba is the most widely counterfeited marca means there is plenty to study. But keep in mind, every marca has its own characteristic features and simply knowing a static profile or image is often of little value. The reason is that things change in time and knowing how they change, either intentionally or as a result of particular production processes is very important.

Thanks again to tiptone for sharing his cigars with me. Tucked in one's humi, a counterfeit is a novelty. Dissected and analyzed for all to see, they can become valuable opportunities to learn and to teach about not only the methods of counterfeiters, but also the critical comparisons that can be made.

I hope you've found this installment as entertaining and as informing to read as it was for me to carry out.

Wilkey


----------



## LSUTIGER (Jan 13, 2004)

Very informative and well done, thanks!


----------



## lenguamor (Nov 23, 2006)

Nice work!


----------



## Old Sailor (Jul 27, 2006)

I like, good work.


----------



## 68TriShield (May 15, 2006)

A great read and lesson sir,thanks...


----------



## RPB67 (Mar 26, 2005)

Wow !

I guess the size was the first hint of fake. Nice narrative you did here.

As always Buyer Beware.


----------



## Lance (Nov 25, 2005)

The "real" bands look fake actually.


----------



## Lance (Nov 25, 2005)

The more I look at the "real" bands, the more attrocious they look. I know you may see some variation from band to band, but those are horrid. The embossing is off, there should only be 2 complete rows of white squares over the word Cohiba, not 2 and a half. The squares should never be cut in half at the top of the band. 

Even the cigars are different lenghts. In the picture of them with the ruler, the one on the left is longer then the one next to it. Plus the triple caps dont look that good.

Where did you get the "real" ones? And what did the box look like? Maybe I am way off, but all of those look fake to me.


----------



## j6ppc (Jun 5, 2006)

Lance said:


> Where did you get the "real" ones? And what did the box look like? Maybe I am way off, but all of those look fake to me.


You read the narrative right?


----------



## thebiglebowski (Dec 19, 2005)

you had me at the labels... :dr


----------



## muziq (Mar 14, 2005)

Very nice work, and very helpful to all of us! Thanks!


----------



## Lance (Nov 25, 2005)

j6ppc said:


> You read the narrative right?


Yeah, but it still never said if the "real" ones were gotten from a reputable vendor, or on the beach in the dominican.

Sure, there are a lot of things that can be wrong which dont necesarilly mean the cigar is a fake, but when all those things are on one cigar, its not a good sign.

Between the bands, the cap, and the length disrepency between the two "real" ones, I would just be skeptical about the legitimacy.


----------



## j6ppc (Jun 5, 2006)

o


----------



## Lance (Nov 25, 2005)

j6ppc said:


> o


You dont see a length difference between the real ones? That much is not normal.

Maybe its the picture though.


----------



## j6ppc (Jun 5, 2006)

Lance said:


> You dont see a length difference between the real ones? That much is not normal.
> 
> Maybe its the picture though.


Might be the picture. In any case it is extremely unlikely that Wilkey got these from anywhere but a reputable source. He knows his cigars and is kind enough to share some of his knowledge with us. A look at threads he's started is informational as hell not to mention good reading.


----------



## pinoyman (Jan 28, 2005)

Lance said:


> You dont see a length difference between the real ones? That much is not normal.
> 
> Maybe its the picture though.


*You're right Lance, I've seen a lot of badly rolled Cohiba Panatela or inconsistent but nothing like that. Hey who knows, maybe the torcedor is just having a bad day and the hermano checking the quality.*


----------



## pinoyman (Jan 28, 2005)

j6ppc said:


> Might be the picture. In any case it is extremely unlikely that Wilkey got these from anywhere but a reputable source. He knows his cigars and is kind enough to share some of his knowledge with us. A look at threads he's started is informational as hell not to mention good reading.


*Oh Yes! He got some of the most informative Cigar CSI!*


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Lance said:


> Between the bands, the cap, and the length discrepancy between the two "real" ones, I would just be skeptical about the legitimacy.


 It's always good to maintain a healthy skepticism. And I don't think you will find anyone more disciplined in their analysis and less wedded to outcomes than Wilkey -- not to mention very few as knowledgeable about counterfeits. If he wasn't certain, he wouldn't have posted his findings -- or he would have characterized them as inconclusive.


----------



## tiptone (Jul 30, 2006)

Wait....so you're saying I shouldn't have bought the rest of the box?

It had the glass top and all of the holograms. 

Thank you so much for your write-up Wilkey, you provide us all with a service that could be had in very few other places.


----------



## Hunter (May 20, 2005)

Great post Wilkey! University of Habanos... Fauxhiba 101.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Hi Lance,
Thank you for sharing your observations. I really appreciate it and you are exactly right to be concerned. I respect your healthy skepticism! As I wrote, there are very few features that by themselves are definitive. Ring gauge discrepancy and, to a much lesser degree, length discrepancy are typically not reliable, even when when seen within a single box. Of course, the more important point is that each case is in fact a puzzle that needs to be considered in light of all the information available. I obtained the genuine specimens from a brother at a local herf. He and I share this same source and I am confident in saying that Lisa sends good stuff.

In those cases where examination of physical features is inconclusive, the final recourse is to smoke it. If it comes down to this, I make the call and if I am confident that I know what a genuine specimen should taste like I smoke it. If not, I send it out to someone who is better acquainted. For example, suspect Hoyos and RyJ may get sent out just because I am not a regular smoker of either of these two marcas (except for the RyJ Churchill which I enjoy a great deal). 

Hoyohio,
I try to be my own harshest critic when it comes to work of this type. You're exactly right that I consider this a service to the community and I take that responsibility quite seriously. 

BTW, 
Here are the guts of the tiptone cigar. The wrapper had dried out to the point where it fragmented as I tried to unwrap it. The two leaves of binder came off intact. When burned, they had a bitter smell that contributed to the chemical scent I picked up in the smoke. The filler was stemmy and very dry which is unusual in genuine cigars. Granted, I did not smoke it long enough to generate much internal moisture but they were still more fragile than is normal. In a cigar of this type, there should only be 1 or 2 main leaf pieces.


Thanks for the kind words all. I'm working on another report and hope to post that in the next week or so.

Wilkey


----------



## KyLongbeard (Nov 13, 2006)

Now I know next to nothing about habanos but couldn't help but reply to this. 
My hats off to you for such an in-depth,comparison review!


----------



## Legends of the Playground (Sep 29, 2006)

Great post.

Wilkey, did you cut the fake open?


----------



## Andyman (Jun 8, 2004)

Lance said:


> The "real" bands look fake actually.


:tpd:


----------



## par (May 22, 2005)

excellent and very entertaining post. I truly enjoyed the narrative!


----------



## Legends of the Playground (Sep 29, 2006)

Legends of the Playground said:


> Great post.
> 
> Wilkey, did you cut the fake open?


Um, oops. I never looked at the 2nd page. :r


----------



## Dzrtrat (Oct 9, 2006)

Awesome information, thanks for posting! :w


----------



## Lance (Nov 25, 2005)

Well as long as the real ones taste and smoke right, then that is all that matters.

Either way, great post.


----------



## MeNimbus (Dec 18, 2006)

Great report. I made a mental note of your comparison methods. A+


----------



## dyj48 (May 1, 2006)

Really great post. I also agreed with Lance's observation regarding the bands, but I really liked your objective response to it as well. Very well done and convincing to me.


----------



## Danbreeze (Jun 27, 2006)

Another photogenic and informative review Wilkey-tip of the cap.

This is especially important b/c the Cohiba brand is probably the most common fake you will find. I would suggest never getting them anywhere but a repuatble source.


----------

